Talk:Carry On Laughing

Television: British / Episode coverage Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Episodes

What part of WP:BRD do you not understand? Your Bold, I Revert, you Discuss. Do not just revert again because you don't like it. The current table is a shameless cut and paste from Carry On series on screen and stage. And I suppose you are using the references which I sourced for the aforementioned FL on this article. We are not offering the readers anything by repeating this information here. If it were up to me. I would delete the entire article. Cassianto ^Talk 11:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I reworked the table in accordance with the examples at MOS:TV. Did you not see that? It is customary to include episode lists at TV series articles. If you don't like the article, why not nominate it for deletion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that as I was contemplating in doing so. The whole article is now redundant because of the FL. Cassianto ^Talk 13:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And that's exactly why the episodes should be listed here, on an article about a TV series produced independently, and independently notable, from the feature films, and not on what is ostensibly a filmography list, in order to avoid that redundancy. Not the other way around. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is why this article should be deleted. So what if the series were produced independently? It carried the "Carry On" prefix and had Rogers down as the Executive producer, not to mention the fact it carried the same cast as the films. If anything, this article should be about the conception of the television series and what went into making it with a link to the FL's relevant section. This article should be prose based and not a list. Cassianto ^Talk 14:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well say that each of the film articles are now redundant because your list made it to featured list status. Yes, this article could use some work to get it to a decent standard and in line with MOS:TV, but it clearly meets the notability guideline at WP:TVSERIES. Part of the work to WP:IMPROVE this article would be to include an episode list, as per any TV series article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The episode list should be here.REVUpminster (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you have the decency to explain why? This one liner is pretty useless without an explanation. Cassianto ^Talk 14:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know the article existed but I would expect to find one if looking as the TV show was a separate entity. I have made some additions to the infobox, but I am not an expert on the series. WP:TVSERIES covers it.REVUpminster (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid it isn't a separate entity. Like I say above, the tv series carried the "Carry On" prefix and had Rogers engaged as the executive producer, not to mention the fact it carried the same cast as the films. This article should be prose based with a neat link to the list IMO. -- Cassianto ^Talk 19:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a separate entity. The TV series is a standalone production within the franchise of the Carry On series. Any other TV series that is part of a franchise will and should include an episode list. Off the top of my head, Freddy's Nightmares, RoboCop: The Series, Firefly (the latter being a featured article). And before you start saying that for some of these, the episodes are on separate articles, it is generally accepted that series with a few episodes don't have a breakout "list of episodes" article, such as Fawlty Towers, Dads (2013 TV series), or, again Firefly. An episode list belongs here. I had hoped for more input from the TV project. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Good example of how a franchise should have been done is Highlander (franchise) or Star Trek although that should be renamed Star Trek (franchise) both which leads to the stand alone articles. Having looked at the Carry On (franchise) that is a very poor article and should have received attention before creating a Carry On series on screen and stage particularly since the editor seems to have a good knowledge of the subject.REVUpminster (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on the way this has been split either, and would have preferred the filmography to have stayed on the main article, as its removal has reduced the article to a shell, but didn't see the note at the time. You could always suggest a re-merge, but now the list article has been peer-reviewed, and considering the tenacity of the editors involved, it would be an uphill struggle. However, this is not the correct forum for this. If you feel strongly about this, you could always offer it as an alternative at the current move request. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]